ORDER 1. The present application is filed by the applicant under section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1 vide order dated 28.5.2024, passed in MCRC No.20250/2024. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the petition of respondent was allowed vide order dated 28.5.2024, but the respondent no.1 is trying to threat the complainant. In this case, a complaint has been filed in the police station Annapurna, Indore addressed to Police Station Tilak Nagar, Indore. It is also submitted that while getting the bail by respondent No.1 from this Court, certain facts have not been placed and the bail has not been acquired by clean hands. Hence, the bail order is liable to be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that since there is no supervening circumstances arises in the present case, the bail order passed by this Court cannot be cancelled. So far as the wrong facts on which the bail has been acquired by the applicant are concerned, this Hon'ble Court has passed the bail order after considering each and every aspect of the case and the order of this Court cannot be reviewed by itself. So far as the complaint regarding threat is concerned, learned Senior counsel has submitted that the application is addressed to police Station Tilak Nagar, Indore and alleged to be submitted before Annapurna Police Station, but as per the RTI information, no complaint has been received by Annapurna Police Station. Therefore, the submissions of counsel for applicant are not considerable. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the Judgment passed in the case of Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 . 4. In reply, counsel for the applicant submits that the application on which the applicant is relying on is already annexed with the Charge-sheet as Annexure A/2. However, he has fairly submitted that no FIR has been registered on the said complaint. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 . 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 . 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is well established that the power of cancellation of bail should be used in rarest of rare cases. There should be some specific grounds to cancel the bail application earlier passed by this Court. Counsel for the applicant is unable to point out any supervening circumstances against the respondent by which the bail can be cancelled. 7. So far as the contention of applicant regarding misleading of facts before this Court and other wrong pleas are concerned, this Court has no power to review its own order. On this aspect, the law endorsed by Hon'ble apex Court rendered in the case of Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir Chouhdary (2014) 10 SCC 754 is condign to quote here as under: 27…. “24. This Court in paragraph 30 of its decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 has cautioned that “36..cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made, it should always be exercised very sparingly by the Court of law. 25. It is a well settled proposition of law what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. While exercising a statutory power a Court is bound to act within the four corners of the Statute. The statutory exercise of the power stands on a different pedestal than the power of judicial review vested in a Court. The same has been upheld by this Court in Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors., (2006) 13 SCC 737, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 and Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 690 . It is the duty of the superior Courts to follow the command of the statutory provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions which are permissible in law. 26. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 and Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 690 . It is the duty of the superior Courts to follow the command of the statutory provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions which are permissible in law. 26. In the instant case, the order for bail in the bail application preferred by the accused-petitioners herein finally disposes of the issue in consideration and grants relief of bail to the applicants therein. Since, no express provision for review of order granting bail exists under the Code, the High Court becomes functus officio and section 362 of the Code applies herein barring the review of judgment and order of the Court granting bail to the accused-petitioners. Even though the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the Court under section 439(2) of the Code, it does not vest the power of review in the Court which granted bail. Even in the light of fact of misrepresentation by the accusedpetitioners during the grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the respondent/informant’s prayer by sitting in review of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition." 8. In so far as the bail conditions are concerned, certainly, the complaint dated 30.6.2024 is filed by the applicant, however, on that compliant, no case has been registered against the respondent and therefore, solely on that basis, no supervening circumstances arise in the instant case based on which the cancellation of bail may be considered by this Court. Hence, the bail order cannot be cancelled. 9. In the land mark judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, [ AIR 1978 SC 961 ] it has been held as under: " Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case" 10. Further, the Hon'ble apex Court, in the case of Dolat Ram (supra) has illustrated the opinion as under:- 4. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case" 10. Further, the Hon'ble apex Court, in the case of Dolat Ram (supra) has illustrated the opinion as under:- 4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis, Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors. relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable ease in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 11. So far as the law cited by counsel for the applicant in the case of Deepak Yadav (supra) is concerned, actually the aforesaid judgment is pertaining to the offence under section 302 of IPC and the matter was considered by Hon'ble apex Court in appel which is not related with the factum of cancellation of bail, therefore, the same is distinguishable and cannot afford any help to the applicant. 12. In view of above settled propositions of law by Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of State through Delhi Administration (supra), Dolat Ram (supra) & Abdul Basit (supra), in my considered opinion, the order passed on 28. 5.2024, passed in MCRC No.20250/2024, does not warrant any interference, hence, the petition stands dismissed.